Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy) lists)

[Ted Ashton]

Thus it was written in the epistle of Jeremy Howard,
> The reason that having (1..) implies having (..-1) is that if you allow
> (1..), then this is a valid construct:
> 
>   @dot_dot_neg_one = reverse (map {-$_} (1..));
> 
> which is identical to (..-1)! So scrapping (..-1) doesn't actually win you
> anything, in terms of avoiding 'impossible loops'.
> 
> The only way around all this, IMO, is to require that the domain of indexes
> of an infinite loop be specified before the list is output in any way.
> 'Output' includes reduction of the list (see RFC 76). The domain could be
> specified explicitly, or could in some cases be derived by Perl implicitly
> from the context of the expression.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming writeup :-).

Ted
-- 
Ted Ashton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), Info Sys, Southern Adventist University
          ==========================================================           
If others would but reflect on mathematical truths as deeply and as
continuously as I have, they would make my discoveries.
                                           -- Gauss, Karl Friedrich (1777-1855)
          ==========================================================           
         Deep thoughts to be found at http://www.southern.edu/~ashted